“Some of these stories are closer to my own life than others are, but not one of them is as close as people seem to think.” Alice Murno, from the intro to Moons of Jupiter

"Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

“Why does everything you know, and everything you’ve learned, confirm you in what you believed before? Whereas in my case, what I grew up with, and what I thought I believed, is chipped away a little and a little, a fragment then a piece and then a piece more. With every month that passes, the corners are knocked off the certainties of this world: and the next world too. Show me where it says, in the Bible, ‘Purgatory.’ Show me where it says ‘relics, monks, nuns.’ Show me where it says ‘Pope.’” –Thomas Cromwell imagines asking Thomas More—Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Sweet Tooth is a Strange Loop: An Aid to Some of the Dimmer Reviewers of Ian McEwan's New Novel

(I've done my best to avoid spoilers.)

Anytime a character in Ian McEwan’s new novel Sweet Tooth enthuses about a work of
literature, another character can be counted on to come along and pronounce
that same work dreadful. So there’s a delightful irony in the declaration at
the end of a
silly review in The Irish Independent,
which begins by begrudging McEwan his “reputation as the pulse-taker of the
social and political Zeitgeist,” that the book’s ending “might be enough to send McEwan acolytes scurrying
back through the novel to see how he did it, but it made me want to throw the
book out the window.” Citing McEwan’s renown among the reading public before
gleefully launching into critiques that are as difficult to credit as they are
withering seems to be the pattern. The notice in The Economist, for instance, begins,

At 64, with a
Hollywood film, a Man Booker prize and a gong from the queen, Ian McEwan has
become a grand old man of British letters. Publication of his latest novel,
“Sweet Tooth”, was announced on the evening news. A reading at the Edinburgh
book festival was introduced by none other than the first minister, Alex
Salmond.

But, warns the unnamed reviewer, “For all the
attendant publicity, ‘Sweet Tooth’ is not Mr. McEwan’s finest book.” My own
personal take on the novel—after seeking out all the most negative reviews I
could find (most of them are positive)—is that the only readers who won’t
appreciate it, aside from the reviewers who can’t stand how much the reading
public celebrates McEwan’s offerings, are the ones whose prior convictions
about what literature is and what it should do blind them to even the
possibility that a novel can successfully operate on as many levels as McEwan
folds into his narrative. For these readers, the mere fact of an author’s
moving from one level to the next somehow invalidates whatever gratification
they got from the most straightforward delivery of the story.

At the most basic level, Sweet Tooth is the first-person account of how Serena Frome is
hired by MI5 and assigned to pose as a representative for an arts foundation
offering the writer Thomas Haley a pension that will allow him to quit his teaching
job so he can work on a novel. The book’s title refers to the name of a Cold
War propaganda initiative to support authors whose themes Serena’s agency
superiors expect will bolster the cause of the Non-Communist Left. Though Sweet
Tooth is fictional, there actually were programs like it that supported authors
like George Orwell. Serena is an oldest-sibling type, with an appreciation for
the warm security of established traditions and longstanding institutions,
along with an attraction for and eagerness to please authority figures. These
are exactly the traits that lead to her getting involved in the project of
approaching Tom under false pretenses, an arrangement which becomes a serious
dilemma for her as the two begin a relationship and she falls deeper and deeper
in love with him. Looking back on the affair at the peak of the tension, she
admits,

For all the mess I was in, I didn’t know how I could have done
things differently. If I hadn’t joined MI5, I wouldn’t have met Tom. If I’d
told him who I worked for at our very first meeting—and why would I tell a
stranger that?—he would’ve shown me the door. At every point along the way, as
I grew fonder of him, then loved him, it became harder, riskier to tell him the
truth even as it became more important to do so. (266)

This plot has many of the
markings of genre fiction, the secret-burdened romance, the spy thriller. But
even on this basic level there’s a crucial element separating the novel from
its pulpier cousins; the stakes are actually quite low. The nation isn’t under
threat. No one’s life is in danger. The risks are only to jobs and
relationships.

James Lasdun, in an otherwise favorable
review for The Guardian, laments
these low stakes, suggesting that the novel’s early references to big political
issues of the 1970s lead readers to the thwarted expectation of more momentous
themes. He writes,

I couldn't help
feeling like Echo in the myth when Narcissus catches sight of himself in the
pool. “What about the IRA?” I heard myself bleating inwardly as the book began
fixating on its own reflection. What about the PLO? The cold war? Civilisation
and barbarity? You promised!

But McEwan really doesn’t make any such promise in
the book’s opening. Lasdun simply makes the mistake of anticipating Sweet Tooth will be more like McEwan’s
earlier novel Saturday. In fact, the
very first lines of the book reveal what the main focus of the story will be:

My name is Serena
Frome (rhymes with plume) and almost forty years ago I was sent on a secret
mission for the British Security Service. I didn’t return safely. Within
eighteen months of joining I was sacked, having disgraced myself and ruined my
lover, though he certainly had a hand in his own undoing. (1)

That “I didn’t return safely” sets the tone—overly
dramatic, mock-heroic, but with a smidgen of self-awareness that suggests she’s
having some fun at her own expense. Indeed, all the book’s promotional material
referring to her as a spy notwithstanding, Serena is more of a secretary or a
clerk than a secret agent. Her only field mission is to offer funds to a
struggling writer, not exactly worthy of Ian Fleming.

When
Lasdun finally begins to pick up on the lighthearted irony and the over all impish tone
of the novel, his disappointment has him admitting that all the playfulness is
enjoyable but longing nonetheless for it to serve some greater end. Such
longing betrays a remarkable degree of obliviousness to the fact that the final
revelation of the plot actually does serve an end, a quite obvious one. Lasdun misses
it, apparently because the point is moral as opposed to political. A large
portion of the novel’s charm stems from the realization, which I’m confident most
readers will come to early on, that Sweet
Tooth, for all the big talk about global crises and intrigue, is an
intimately personal story about a moral dilemma and its outcomes—at least at
the most basic level. The novel’s scope expands beyond this little drama by
taking on themes that present various riddles and paradoxes. But whereas
countless novels in the postmodern tradition have us taking for granted that
literary riddles won’t have answers and plot paradoxes won’t have points,
McEwan is going for an effect that’s much more profound.

The
most serious criticism I came across was at the end of the Economistreview. The unnamed critic doesn’t appreciate the
surprise revelation that comes near the end of the book, insisting that
afterward, “it is hard to feel much of anything for these heroes, who are all
notions and no depth.” What’s interesting is that the author presents this not
as an observation but as a logical conclusion. I’m aware of how idiosyncratic
responses to fictional characters are, and I accept that my own writing here
won’t settle the issue, but I suspect most readers will find the assertion that
Sweet Tooth’s characters are “all
notion” absurd. I even have a feeling that the critic him or herself
sympathized with Serena right up until the final chapter—as the critic from TheIrish Independent must have. Why else
would they be so frustrated as to want to throw the book out of the window?
Several instances of Serena jumping into life from the page suggest themselves
for citation, but here’s one I found particularly endearing. It comes as she’s returning
to her parents’ house for Christmas after a long absence and is greeted by her
father, an Anglican Bishop, at the door:

“Serena!” He said my name with a kindly, falling tone, with
just a hint of mock surprise, and put his arms about me. I dropped my bag at my
feet and let myself be enfolded, and as I pressed my face into his shirt and
caught the familiar scent of Imperial Leather soap, and of church—of lavender
wax—I started to cry. I don’t know why, it just came from nowhere and I turned
to water. I don’t cry easily and I was as surprised as he was. But there was
nothing I could do about it. This was the copious hopeless sort of crying you
might hear from a tired child. I think it was his voice, the way he said my
name, that set me off. (217)

This scene reminds me of
when I heard my dad had suffered a heart attack several years ago: even though
at the time I was so pissed off at the man I’d been telling myself I’d be
better off never seeing him again, I barely managed
two steps after hanging up the phone before my knees buckled and I broke down sobbing—so deep are these
bonds we carry on into adulthood even when we barely see our parents, so
shocking when their strength is made suddenly apparent. (Fortunately, my dad
recovered after a quintuple bypass.)

Douglas Hofstadter

But, if the critic for the Economist concluded that McEwan’s characters must logically be mere
notions despite having encountered them as real people until the end of the
novel, what led to that clearly mistaken deduction? I would be willing to wager
that McEwan shares with me a fondness for the writing of the computational
neuroscientist Douglas Hofstadter, in particular Gödel, Escher, Bach and I am a Strange Loop, both of which set about arriving at an intuitive
understanding of the mystery of how consciousness arises from the electrochemical
mechanisms of our brains, offering as analogies several varieties of paradoxical,
self-referencing feedback loops, like cameras pointing at the TV screens they
feed into. What McEwan has engineered—there’s no better for word for it—with
his novel is a multilevel, self-referential structure that transforms and
transcends its own processes and premises as it folds back on itself.

One of the strange loops Hofstadter explores, M.C.
Escher’s 1960 lithograph Ascending and Descending, can give us some helpful guidance in understanding what McEwan
has done. If you look at the square staircase in Escher’s lithograph a section
at a time, you see that each step continues either ascending or descending,
depending on the point of view you take. And, according to Hofstadter in Strange Loop,

A person is a point of
view—not only a physical point of
view (looking out of certain eyes in a certain physical space in the universe),
but more importantly a psyche’s point
of view: a set of hair-trigger associations rooted in a huge bank of memories.
(234)

Importantly, many of those
associations are made salient with emotions, so that certain thoughts affect us in
powerful ways we might not be able to anticipate, as when Serena cries at the sound
of her father’s voice, or when I collapsed at the news of my father’s heart
attack. These emotionally tagged thoughts form a strange loop when they turn
back on the object, now a subject, doing the thinking. The neuron forms the
brain that produces the mind that imagines the neuron, in much the same way as
each stair in the picture takes a figure both up and down the staircase. What
happened for the negative reviewers of Sweet
Tooth is that they completed a circuit of the stairs and realized they
couldn’t possibly have been going up (or down), even though at each step along the
way they were probably convinced.

McEwan, interviewed
by Daniel Zalewski for the New Yorker
in 2009, said, “When I’m writing I don’t really think about themes,” admitting
that instead he follows Nabokov’s dictum to “Fondle details.”

Writing is a
bottom-up process, to borrow a term from the cognitive world. One thing that’s
missing from the discussion of literature in the academy is the pleasure
principle. Not only the pleasure of the reader but also of the writer. Writing
is a self-pleasuring act.

The immediate source of pleasure then for McEwan,
and he probably assumes for his readers as well, comes at the level of the
observations and experiences he renders through prose. Sweet Tooth is full of great lines like, “Late October
brought the annual rite of putting back the clocks, tightening the lid of
darkness over our afternoons, lowering the nation’s mood further” (179). But
McEwan would know quite well that writing is also a top-down process; at some
point themes and larger conceptual patterns come into play. In his novel
Saturday, the protagonist, a neurosurgeon named Henry Perowne, is listening to
Angela Hewitt’s performance of Bach’s strangely loopy “Goldberg” Variations. He
writes,

Well over an hour has passed, and Hewitt is already at the final
Variation, the Quodlibet—uproarious and jokey, raunchy even, with its echoes of
peasant songs of food and sex. The last exultant chords fade away, a few
seconds’ silence, then the Aria returns, identical on the page, but changed by
all the variations that have come before. (261-2)

Just as an identical
Aria or the direction of ascent or descent in an image of
stairs can be transformed by a shift in perspective, details about a character, though they may be
identical on the page, can have radically different meanings, serve radically
different purposes depending on your point of view.

Though in the novel
Serena is genuinely enthusiastic about Tom’s fiction, the two express their disagreements
about what constitutes good literature at several points. “I thought his lot
were too dry,” Serena writes, “he thought mine were wet” (183). She likes
sentimental endings and sympathetic characters; he admires technical élan. Even
when they agree that a particular work is good, it’s for different reasons: “He
thought it was beautifully formed,” she says of a book they both love, “I
thought it was wise and sad” (183). Responding to one of Tom’s stories that features
a talking ape who turns out never to have been real, Serena says,

I instinctively distrusted this kind of fictional trick. I
wanted to feel the ground beneath my feet. There was, in my view, an unwritten
contract with the reader that the writer must honor. No single element of an
imagined world or any of its characters should be allowed to dissolve on
authorial whim. The invented had to be as solid and as self-consistent as the actual.
This was a contract founded on mutual trust. (183)

A couple of the reviewers suggested that the last
chapter of Sweet Tooth revealed that
Serena had been made to inhabit precisely the kind of story that she’d been
saying all along she hated. But a moment’s careful reflection would have made
them realize this isn’t true at all. What’s brilliant about McEwan’s narrative
engineering is that it would satisfy the tastes of both Tom and Serena. Despite
the surprise revelation at the end—the trick—not one of the terms of Serena’s
contract is broken. The plot works as a trick, but it also works as an intimate
story about real people in a real relationship. To get a taste of how this can
work, consider the following passage:

Tom promised to read me a Kingsley Amis poem, “A Bookshop Idyll,” about men’s and women’s divergent tastes. It went a bit soppy at the
end, he said, but it was funny and true. I said I’d probably hate it, except
for the end. (175)

The self-referentiality of
the idea makes of it a strange loop, so it can be thought of at several levels,
each of which is consistent and solid, but none of which captures the whole
meaning.

Sweet Tooth is
a fun novel to read, engrossing and thought-provoking, combining the pleasures of genre fiction with some of the
mind-expanding thought experiments of some of the best science writing. The
plot centers on a troubling but compelling moral dilemma, and, astonishingly,
the surprise revelation at the end actually represents a solution to this
dilemma. I do have to admit, however, that I agree with the Economist that it’s not McEwan’s best novel. The conceptual plot
devices bear several similarities with those in his earlier novel Atonement, and that novel is much more serious,
its stakes much higher. Sweet Tooth
is nowhere near as haunting as Atonement.
But it doesn’t need to be.

1 comment:

Lepidoptera
said...

Brilliant, brilliant observations, and very carefully constructed counters to the myriad critics on both continents who seem perpetually more interested in disparaging Mr. McEwan's work than objectively analyzing it.

Sweet Tooth is a wonder and a remarkable book. On first reading, Serena's blasé omission of her first 18 years seemed a scant lazy, or maybe unnecessary, but in hindsight was a marvelous detail. When Mr McEwan takes the full care to describe an event or a setting, he creates sentences and turns of phrase to rival any in modern literature.